State v. Glushko/Little

When a defendant’s failure to appear for a hearing results in the delay of prosecution without the defendant’s consent, the delay may be considered reasonable. The state is not obliged to dismiss the charges against the defendant, despite failing to use every available means to locate them.

Two cases were consolidated, both involving defendants who challenged the trial courts erred in denying motions to dismiss charges against them because the state did not comply with statutory speedy trial requirements. Each defendant failed to appear at trial, during which the prosecution issued arrest warrants. Defendants were arrested again and convicted eight years later. The Supreme Court analyzed the facts according to the test of whether the defendants consented to the delay, and if not, whether the delay was reasonable. The Court noted that the defendants were legally on notice to appear, and while their delay did not amount to consent, it also did not ultimately require that the trial court dismiss the charges. Affirmed.